Viewpoint

sorry dl, but you know that all sports ultimatlely are won on individual merits so when it comes to a shootout we all know that the one who scores the winning goal, and the ulimate goal is to win, the one who scored the winning goal shines.

I'll never forget staying up till 2 A.M. watching the Islanders-Capitals 4th ot. way back in '86 or '87 (can't remember which) with the Islanders prevailing. (can't remember who scored maybe Lafontaine or Flatley) but I do remember how exciting it was. In fact, it doesn't get any better. Talk about edge of your seat! Any other way to decide a game of importance is just a cop out for television purposes only! Judging by the blog feedback there are a few who actually prefer the shootout(probably also think nike invented hockey equipment) but majority rules so overtime is still king!

The World Junior games were great because of the large ice surface.I don't like watching the NHL any more because of the small ice surface.It is so boring.It is almost static with no room to skate and pass.
It is killing the game.

forget the shoot-out if you're playing a team sport.shoot-out to me is glorifying one or two players
O/T until a goal is scored,[period]

Very simple, no shootouts for playoffs and especially for a world championship final. Play 4 vs 4 until a winner is declared. I won't take long!

All the comments I am reading are saying that it is a "team" sport. If the shootout wasn't put into play are you people really thinking that the coach is going to play every single player in the OT??? When a game becomes tight, the bench gets smaller and some players are not going to be used because there are more skilled players that have a better chance at ending the game, so why if the shootout is being used that the best players on the team can not be used more then once?

I've never been a fan of the "shoot-out" period. There is nothing more exciting than sudden death overtime hockey. Obviously the shoot-out was designed to end games quickly since overtime could theoretically go on for days, however you can't convince me that shoot-outs are exciting. I would rather see a 5 minute regular overtime, with an additional 5 minute 4 on 4. If no one scores after 2 overtimes, each team must play their (second) goaltender for a third and final overtime. If no-one can score in 15 minutes of overtime, than ya- do a shoot-out. But only for regular season games. All playoff rounds must be sudden death overtime until someone scores. Man the way its going, its looking more and more like soccer!! Nothing better than a final 2-1 score. This idea that fans want to see tons of goals scored seems misguided to me. You can't beat watching great goaltending,
solid hits, blocked shots, a nice goal, and the odd ice pack on the knuckles. Shoot-outs are right up there with the the "glowing" blue puck feature.

While I would definitely argue in favour of running through the entire roster of players dressed to play before allowing a player to take a second shot, the validity of the shoot-outs themselves are an entirely different beast to tackle. In some respects, it is difficult to completely argue against their use.

First, while continuing to play sudden-death may seem more "fair" to the teams involved, it requires the players to run ten, twenty, even sixty more minutes in a game than they are accustomed to. Since season schedules and tournaments alike are jam-packed with second and third-day games, players would tire quickly and would not be at their peak for their ensuing games (in the event that a sudden-death went to the extremes hinted to above).

Second, hockey is not the only sport in the world to use the shoot-out formula. The FIFA World Cup also debates this issue every four years. So, I guess, when hockey is not the only team sport strapped with the shoot-out dilemma, when does it cease to be a nuisance and simply become part of the game?

Due to these sorts of intrinsic issues facing the inclusion of the shoot-out formula in championship hockey and sport in general, I'm not exactly sure where I stand.

But, I can definitely say that each member of the team dressed to play should be given the opportunity to win it for the team and the country. It's as close to a fair tiebreaker as I think we can get under the present conditions.

Cheers!

I think a shootout is a ridiculous way to decide a winner in the world juniors or world championships play till there is a winner. Let it be a team effort not a one on one situation.If they don't decide to change it. I think it should be a different shooter, you should not be able to use a shooter that shot earlier in the shootout.I'm proud of the WORLD JUNIOR CHAMPIONS FROM CANADA. Especially for Carey Price the future of the Montreal Canadiens between the pipes. Let's go for 4 in Chezch. GO CANADA GO. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Scotty you certainly got the attention of the average hockey fan here with your comment. Althought the outcome was favourable, the average fan would have preferred to play an extra period.

As much as hockey is a team game how exciting was that shoot-out? A game that will be talked about amongst the ages. So why are you looking to change it? For once lets leave things alone and enjoy the World Junior game for what it is. A very entertaining event which cannot be said about the NHL.

I am not in favor of the shoot outs, as It is very unfair to the Goalie,and the team. I would think it very stressful on the goalie and on the player who now has to try to win the game for the whole team.
Daisy

I have always deplored deciding football/soccer games by penalties, but shootouts in hockey are not totally out of place. Breakways are one of the very exciting moments in the game. It is the skater coming in on the goalie and both probably relish to opportunity to shine.

Shootouts are no way to decide playoff/tournament games. Period. The OT format for the junior tourney should be 10 mins of 4on4, followed by 10 mins of 3on3, and as many periods of additional 3on3 as required ... it won't take that long! And the excitement and skills displayed would be unbelievable.

The NHL should adopt the same for their regular season format. 5 mins of 4on4, then 3on3 until there's a goal ... I bet 10 mins maximum is all it would take !! The shootout is not as exciting as good 4on4 or 3on3 is.

A shootout makes the game much more exciting, enhancing its appeal to those other that the gnarly old-school hockey monsters. Smell the future puck munchers!

So the shootouts in hockey lets the skilled players determine the outcome of the game. Who is supposed to determine the outcome of a hockey game? The unskilled (ie. Goons) players? We have seen plenty of that in the NHL; at least before the post strike rule changes and they have a way to go.
Why are the skilled players in the NHL primarily Europeans who general determine the rules and formats of these international tournaments. Maybe they know more about producing hackey talents.
Yes shootouts are a let down for the loser. So is the strange bounce that loses an overtime game or any game for that matter. But let's do anything to showcase and bring more skill into the game. All except Don Cherry and his blind followers know it is needed.

Hockey is a team effort and that's the way it should be right to the final game. Like you said it shouldn't be a "skills competition" for a couple of players. Spring for the extra ice time and let the game be decided the way it should be decided.........sudden death overtime with the complete team participating right to the end.

I agree that a shootout is a dumb way to decide who plays in the final, but hey, we won and I'm still happy.

While I am fully aware that the concept of hockey is a team sport, I have to question the logic behind this philosophy. If this statement is true and it truly is a team sport, why do coaches routinely employ a short bench when it comes to crunch time. It is the desire to win that enables coaches to make decisions that will ultimately help or hinder a teams chances for victory. Allowing a skater to shoot more than once in the world jr's is a brilliant tactical move by a coach who understood the rules and competed to win. The Canadian contingent did not make the rules, they were simply playing within them. As far as shoot out vs. overtime. The same strategy has been and will continue to be utilized in both scenarios. That's why they call them special teams. You put your best offensive players on the ice when on the power play and best defensive players on the ice to kill a penalty. This is not a team concept.

everyone that thinks a shoot out is stupid are stupid themselves, when it goes to a shootout that means the goalies are playing at the top of their game and can not be beatin, and they need to be beat them is to send 1 player in to try and snipe one home, or pull off one of those amazing goals we have seen before in the NHL shootouts.

Clearly, Canada has become too big for its britches. Time to nuke'em, boys.

That's all.

A shootout in a semi-final game is MORONIC. It is NOT the right way to decide a game of such importance. What the hell is wrong with the international hockey rule-makers that we have such STUPID rules? A 10 minute over-time in the semi-final, but a 20 minute over-time in the Gold medal game? WHY? Are they crazy? Let them play until there is a winner. Most NHL games don't go to 4 or 5 overtimes, but even if the juniors went that far, why are we afraid of a true "classic"? It makes NO sense. It's almost as if the rule-makers have no taste for the team sport known as hockey. It's wrong, regardless of the shooters that are put up in the shootout. Although I do agree with Scott, fixing the shootout is like patching a blown tire. The tire isn't any good, get rid of it.

Hey ... I'm just glad Canada won! I'm Canadian and live in the US and I could not find a station on TV or Radio that carried the game ... thank goodness I was home over Christmas and listened to CHOK from Sarnia/Lambton while in the car and did the same yesterday from the web. The US is not as interested in the World Jr's like we are so just for our fan base I'm glad we won ... it was exciting and that's the way the rules are! Go Canada!

Using a shoot-out to decide a game is as anti-climatic as it gets. Might as well stick the shooters and goalie on the ice at the start and call it a day!

Guy: "To play 60 minutes, plus a 10 minute overtime of grinding hockey only to lose out because the other team's shooter happens to put one in off the post is disgusting."

Good point. It's so much beter to watch someone get a crappy bounce off the boards, point the puck at the net, and have it go in off of some hapless defensemen's rear end.

One poster had it right, variety people.

I agree with you. I like shootouts in the NHL, they're exciting and fun to watch. But that's only for regular season play. To have a shootout decide a winner-takes-all game is dumb. Kind of like sudden-death OT in NFL. Fine for regular season, but in playoffs it's just a matter of who wins the coin toss. Yes Canada won yesterday (yaay), but it would have been more rewarding to say "team canada" won the game, not Towes & Price.

I notice that a number of people want the game decided by
ovetime.
My suggestion would be a set time, eg ten minutes, of five on five.
If the game is still tied, a brief intermission, eg five minutes to change ends etc., then go with four on four.
If the game is still tied then an overtime period of three on three.
It will get really nail-biting when we get to two on two.
After that maybe remove the goalies but allow a 'skater' to play goal. He could be allowed a chest pad and a goalies mask but otherwise be equipped with the regular 'skaters' equipment. To add drama he could be allowed to join the rush if he wanted.
In european soccer you sometimes see the goal keper come up the field and play as mid-fielder.

This will save us the agony of watching two or more hours of
overtime as I once did about twelve or fifteen years ago during the
preliminary rounds of the Stanley cup. And it will not doom the winnner in quarter finals from being blitzkrieged the next day in the semi-finals.

If hockey was a total "team game" then why haven't we seen Kendall McArdle taking his shifts? Having played hockey all of my life including three years in Major Jr., I agree that a shootout does not do justice to the team concept innate to hockey, and simply plays up the "excitment" for the average fan, but ... to argue that showcasing individual talent is somehow a negative is simply a "false flag". No matter how team oriented some systems are, the stars and leaders of a team rise above proved by the contracts, ice-time and individual accolades they recieve. A shoot-out is perhaps a small glimpse of this reality. Wierd yes, but what isn't?

A team game should be decided by the team. Hats off to Toews and Price. They bailed the rest of the team out as the US may have deserved to win duirng the regulation and O/T. We won this game but remember the hurt we felt at the olympics in 1998. It's no way to decide any team sport. Pressure needs to be put on the people who run the game to change the format. It seems everything is about entertainment and less about the sport. Oh well .. soon we'll see kcik boxing during the intermissions to attract fans!

I never could understand the validity of the "the teams don't decide the games" argument. Look at all the sudden death games in NHL history, how many of them were decided by a fluke goal, a puck that just bounced the wrong way or by a goaltender that just gave a bad one? All it takes is one player to make one mistake, and sometimes just a stroke of bad luck, and it's over.

Don't get me wrong, I love sudden-death overtime, but if time is of the essence, I have absolutely no problem with a good shoot-out.

While I personally prefer sudden-death overtime to a shoot-out, overtime can go on forever, and is physically and emotionally draining on a team, and puts the winning team at a disadvantage in the next game. Even if there is enough rest time in between games, it still takes practice time away from the team. I'd rather see Canada win in a shoot-out and go strong in the final.

Having been at the Lillehamer Olympics and witnessing my first shoot out I would echo the comments of Yves "introduced them so the gold medal game in particular would not interfere with their precious schedule, speeches and closing ceremonies. Talk of having your priorities backwards..." No one participating in the game would have been able to make the ceremonies the way the game was scheduled.It did seem to me at the time when we lost to Sweden that it was a bizzare way to end a game that was such a joy to watch.I couldn't watch the shootout put my flag over my head. My view is let them play hockey, nothing else really matters. It's the game after all and rule changes like this detract greatly from the play. Some changes make the game better but not this one.
As for the rule allowing multiple shots it doesn't make a difference to me. It's equal for both sides and the players. For those who commented on extreme pressure for those few, well it's a world championship there is that for all involved. Now let's play Hockey good luck team send the russians packing....

OUr cultural heritage, hockeywise, is that when your parents call you to dinner, it's next goal wins, not a shootout.

Football games settled by field goal kicks, basketball games by free throws, baseball games by distance hit by star batters from the pitchers, boxing matches by "free hits", tennis matches by hardest serve....all really stupid ideas.

the shootout comes from soccer, a painfully boring game to watch and play, where any shot on the goal enhances excitment. In hockey the shootout is actually less exciting than continued play.

leave shootouts to the pedestrian world of soccer and let's settle real sports by actually playing

Why not just have the goalies shoot on each other?!

what difference does it make how the final outcome come of the game is decided. once you start the shoot out all this now means is that 1 team must lose in the aloted time this means its not always the best team that wins just the luckiest

Couldnt agree more. Hate the shootout, and the fact that players got to shoot multiple times was ridiculous. Mueller and Johnson for the US each got a couple as well.

While exciting and maybe the original intent, dramatic, shootouts do what the exec. want...entertain. Like previous comments suggest, to have a team game decided by as few as four players seems somewhat unfair. How about allowing all players of both teams to participate in the shootout. That could settle it in a way where all team members have the chance to contribute.

What's the big deal? The rules were in place before the game, both teams have supposedly the talent to win the big game whether in regular time or a shoot-out. Every hotly contested game that ends this way will always have someone debating the merits. The only way to solve this eliminate the shootout and play sudden death even if it means a marathon....whoa...wait a minute..that may infringe upon TV time meaning loss of commercial revenues.

I really hate the shoot out in any format. I want a return to when the teams played OT until the issue was resolved! That being said, the rules are the rules as many have already said. However, the bizarre rule that allows repeated shooters was not well known. Now that this has happened perhaps the IIHL will have a look and make a change?

Shootouts are one of the worst features inherited from Olympic hockey. I think they introduced them so the gold medal game in particular would not interfere with their precious schedule, speeches and closing ceremonies. Talk of having your priorities backwards...

Love hockey, hate the shootouts! If the shootout is going to be used, then it doesn't matter to me how they choose who is going to take the shots, it just doesn't prove a clear cut winner to me. And it must be frustrating for the players too.

Perspective is everything. While Canadians debate the validity of the shootout format, the Americans (check out ESPN) are more preoccupied with the perception that one of the shots should have been reviewed.

We're agonizing over the integrity of the game. The Americans are just mad because they think they were robbed. Maybe we should just be happy we won.

Everyone seems to forget one thing here.
How is a team suposed to get into top shape for a final after two to three overtimes in the semi final?
Usually the playoff take place within a few weeks, keep the players fresh.
Rotate the shooters would be great but not necessary.(give everyone some spotlight)
go canada go

In my opinion, a suitable tie-breaker format would be best determined by a coin-toss in which the winner decides between a thumbwar, or a round of rock-paper-scissors. Naturally, the best of 5, or perhaps even the best of 7 format would be observed, thereby ensuring a fair outcome. Alternatively, the two teams could battle to the death.

Maybe they should settle ties in the NBA with FREE THROWS hA hA hA.

Don't like the shootout in any league. The refs missed two calls in the Jr. shootout. U.S Goalie threw his stick, should have been an automatic goal and also the Cdn goalie dragged the puck in under his pads.

is it just me or was that an awful goatending display by both goalies in the shootout? The only time the players missed were when they tried to deke or go five-hole. As long as they shot, they scored.

As for the issue of a shootout, plain and simple, with the final not being scheduled till friday, there is not even a need for a shootout. It is a gimmick and i totally agree with scotty that by allowing shooters to shoot more than once, it detracts from the team concept even more.

The rules are the rules but reusing the shooter really needs to be looked at.

In a regular season game I wouldn't mind seeing Ovechkin vs Crosby for all 3 shots...

For a semifinal game in a tournament however I'd much rather see the whole lineup being used. It is a TEAM game and the shootout reduces that enough already doesn't it?

I'd much rather prefer to see overtime decide the game. Hopefully the shootout fever doesn't spread to other sports. Whats next? A 3 point shootout to decide basketball games? A field goal contest for football? Homerun derby for baseball?

The erudite way with which this was written suggests a heightened sense of awareness as it pertains to hockey.

The World Junior Championship is a frivolous waste of patriotism. If we're supposed to take this thing seriously, then the organizers should at least have the intelligence to orchestrate a proper overtime and shootout.

Seems like this started off objectively but has turned into a anti-shootout rant! I thought the game and shootout were exciting. This has obviously heightened the interest of the game and the tournament.

I think marathon games with a lucky goal at the end are no fun to watch, or to lose by either. As mentioned by Dave from Victoria - put the game out of it's misery. Also Jack from Ontario's comment to have a shootout prior to the game to decide any possible tie at the end is interesting too!

This team concept that seems to be echoed for anti-shootout reasons is wrong. Having individual talent is part of the game; be it an enforcer, a scorer, a leader, whatever. Either our goalie was better or our marksmen were, or both. As far as running thru the roster goes, the US team knew the rules. If we have one guy that is that dependable in the situation, of course we will use him. Imagine if Toews had missed, he almost did on his last one! There are lots of rules that differ in every league and tournament, what's the big deal? Hey the size of the ice is not even regulation!

This was a very entertaining game and shootout. One of the best I have ever seen! Think back to when you were all watching it - I'm sure (all be it maybe silently) that you all enjoyed the hell out of it too!

Weird? yes. Wrong? In my opinion yes. However, rules are rules, and everyone knew going in, that this was a possibility. I agree with the comment above. Now is not the time for the debate. The kids, and lets not forget that is what they are, kids, need to concentrate on the next game. Canada played well and won, the USA played well and lost. Somebody had to. We've been there many times.

IIHF always uses the shoot out, so there is not getting around that. Using the same shooters over again, that is lame. They should implement the same rule as in Soccer. During a penalty kicks, each team has to go through the roster, even the goaltender kicks a penalty.

Like many on the post have commented, hockey is a team game. It should be lost or won as a team. I know it can make for a very long final result, but that is only fair. A stupid mistake by an exhausted player may end up deciding the game, so be it. Then it comes down to conditioning. It's still a 6 a side game. Otherwise just flip a coin and get it over with.

The loosing team of a shoot out will never be satisfied with the way their team lost regardless of the format as all formats remove "team" from the result. The overtime would be a great time to force teams to use their backup goaltender.

Although I do not like the shoot-out format, I am glad that questionable officiating did not have an influence on the outcome. Too often, bungled calls put one of the teams at a disadvantage and too often in the past it has been Canadian teams!

I do agree, that a shoot out is not the best option, but the US did use Johnson more than once too. It's just that he scored 2 times instead of 3.

The world junior shootout format is somewhat flawed, I agree. I don't mind watching the entire roster in a shootout. Why? Come on, let's face it, ALL of these players are skilled - this is the elite world junior/future NHL'ers. They are all more than capable of stick handling, rifling shots, and deking a goalie out. It's all about how you deal with the pressure of the situation. It was exciting, and Toews performance was incredible, and Mueller was also pretty clutch - but all around it did seem like a odd way to win. Fair though because both teams put their best shooter out 3 times each. Go Canada Go!

Hockey is said to be a team game. The OLD NHL determined by playing AS TEAMS until a goal was scored often until the wee hours of the morning which EVERYONE recalls, until a FEW FRONT OFFICE types in ivory towers decided to change the rules to better suit their personal opinions and TV schedules. Not democracy as no fan vote was taken as I recall frankly. SAD, as it is supposed to be a team sport.

Hockey is a six player game - play that way till you have a winner. All these shootouts and 4 skater overtime compromise hockey for the sake of television scheduling or international political agendas. Hockey has already been seriously damaged by TV scheduling, commercial timeouts etc.!!!

The IIHF allows the same shooter because it is serving the paying public. The fans want high drama and what better way than having the successful guy going into he is stoned by the goalie. The NHL picked another way. And guess what? They drive on the other side of the road in England than they do in Toronto. Variety is the spice of life.

You make some compelling points in what is essentially a philosophical discussion of the finer points of our sport of hockey. In this spirit, I would submit that your rhetorical question "Should the two teams not have had to put out a different shooter each time...?" does not stand up to logical reasoning. The flaw is exposed by posing the counter-question "Should the two teams not have had to put out a different goalie each time...?"
The conclusion is that it simply doesn't matter who the shooters were.

Now that we have resolved this, let's go beat those pesky Rooshians!

Mr Morrison's criticisms of the use of shootouts in big game decisions, and his concerns about the format of such shootouts are completely valid, and yet methinks if Canadian "hero" Jonathon Toews were from Trawna this would have been an entirely different article.

Every one missed the point. It not about the shoot out. It costs. Satellite cost, Voice over cost. You have to book all these cost well in advance.

Scott, I'm a "purist" as well and 100% agree with you. As a Canadian living in the USA, there's a wall of ignorance here; winning is all-important no matter how, and shootouts are more entertaining. That hockey is a "team sport" means little in a society where increasingly less is done as a team.

I don't like the shootout format. Hockey games need to be decided by playing the game properly. The excitement of overtime periods can't be matched in my opinion. A shootout reminds me if a bunch of kids playing road hockey. It takes the "team" out of hockey.

I couldn't agree more.

Because Canada won, few will contemplate how the shootout should have been contested. As long as the shootout remained tied, they should have kept going down the roster until every player had their chance at winning the game. If the result is still not settled, then you get to go through the roster again.

However, hockey is a team game and as a player and coach, I strongly feel that a game of this magnitude should have been settled by the teams. Not the four skaters and goalie from each side that actually participated in the shootout.

Play an important game like this to a conclusion. Involve the entire team. If hockey continues to settle the games in this matter, then all the game becomes is a glorified skills competition. People will remember the shootout and not the compelling hockey that preceeded it.

In this age of the quick gratification fix, there are people out there who would rather watch the 2 minute shootout than the game. While the shootout is thrilling to watch, I'll never be one of them. Hockey is a wonderful game to watch and play.

That being said, thank God that Toews was on our side. What a shooter!

They should play until a "real" goal is scored. Shootouts take away from the true drama of the game. The drama is in the battles for loose pucks, weird bounces etc...(remember those great Stanley Cup playoff games double/triple overtime winners...every rush our hearts were jumping out of our chests). When players/teams become tired, the level of play and urgency to win often makes the games more enjoyable to watch. Shootouts are a travesty.

Shootout of overtime, Canada is the best! To use the words of Mo Green from the USA

Canada does not lose, we just finish second some times....

I did not witness this but certainly do not agree with the way it was done.Whose idea was this?The game is to be decided by the teams!Play until a winner is declared(4 on 4)!!
Not that it matters,but still playing at 59 yrs(winning still means something)Do it right!!

I am in total agreement also. But saying that International rules have always ended with shootouts, no? This change just adds to the weirdness of it all.
I don't like the NHL bastardizing it's rules just to schmooze up to the US market and i long for our TEAM game to return.

I agree with most of the comments above because in principal I don't like the idea of a shootout to decide elimination games but in IIHF competitions it's been this way for a long time. I'm basically used to it now and accept it as part of the international game. As far as reusing players for more then one shot, I am all for it. If you are going to allow a breakaway competition to decide a game then teams should be able to use their best as much as they want to. I don't buy the argument about how it's a "team" game when it comes to a shootout so the whole team should have to shoot. You've already elminated the team aspect when you've gone to the SO so I think it should be the best a la best. If I'm going to be forced to watch shoot-outs then I'd rather watch the skill guys then some 4th line plugger try and score.

Although a shoot out may be exciting for some, as a hockey referee I enjoy the long overtime game. To see the look on the players that are hungry for a goal and some nervous not to give one up. Especially in these big games (semis, final) not to take away from Canada's victory but it could have gone either way, the US played well. I say away with the shoot out!

In a tournament such as this, it's understandable that shoot-outs come into play. A condensed tourney of teenagers - there isn't any point in subjecting them to 4 or more periods. As for the format, the only reasonable explanation I've heard is that on junior teams, the skill drop off from the top offensive players to the next level can be extremely great. U.S. and Canada are the exception, but other teams are not so blessed. Goals are exciting, so the IIHF probably doesn't want to see a fourth liner tripping over the blue line or missing the net completely.

I think the shootout definitely has a place in international hockey. The games have to end within a reasonable timeframe because these tournaments tend to pack a lot of games into a relatively short span, leaving the players little time to rest in between. The Canadians (or USA) shouldn't be punished for playing potentially two or three intense overtime periods, having the gold medal game two days later against a much fresher Russian team.

I agree that under the rules the same shooter should not be allowed to shoot twice. That's just strange!

I wonder if people would watch a team sport where each time there was an infraction, only individual skills were involved to resolve the infraction. I'm not a big fan of baskestball but lots of folks are.

If something is an accepted part of the game, who cares if it's 'team' or 'individual'?

I felt tension, excitement, sorrow and elation... all during that shoot out win over the U.S. The three regulation periods before - not so much.

Lots of good ideas in this discussion. I would be curious to see Jack's idea of doing the shootout before the game!

And... Go Canada Go!

In my mind the reason for sudden death overtime is to give the advantage to the team sitting and watching the other two teams beat themselves up. If you don't want to got to overtime get it done in regulation ( there is 60 min ).

That is the case in the NHL. This shoot out is only helping the teams that can only hang on until the shoot out. If they played the overtime periods until a winner was determined and only 2 points awarded the weaker teams who continue to go to overtime will themselves slumping in the standings because of the extra playing time.

Scott, you say "It says here the teams should have continued playing overtime hockey until a winner was determined."

Where is "here"? What the blazers are you talking about?

Nothing wrong with a shootout if everyone understands the rules going into the game, including the sports commentators.

It's those annoying rule shifts during the game that spoil the flavour of international hockey.

The shootout is a good way to end things, especially in a tournament where athletes need to save energy for upcoming games. I don't think that letting the same player keep taking penalty shots detracts from the team aspect; you could call it a return to the concept of fielding a champion, like sending Sir Lancelot out to do single battle to defend the honor of a lady, or in this case, of a country.

I deplore the shootout. This format is even worse as it is not only a bad way to decide what was an exciting game, but it is degrading to the majority of players on both teams. To play 60 minutes, plus a 10 minute overtime of grinding hockey only to lose out because the other team's shooter happens to put one in off the post is disgusting.

I agree with most of the comments here. A shootout is not the way to decide any type of playoff game. I actually don't mind the shootout during NHL regular season games, for the most part it's exciting and they have to cycle through new players each round.

International and NHL playoff games must be decided by OT. There's just no other way to decide important games. I've never seen one player decide an overtime. You lose as a team. Always.

Everything is wierd when it comes to European hockey, bigger ice surface, no centre line, etc. etc., that's OK with me as long as they keep it there. Now we have to put up with their wierdness in the NHL. Thank goodness our ice surface is still smaller at least the wimps from Europe can't run!

Shootouts are fun ...but the significance of the outcome was too great. Sure ,"Our" team won but I believe a first goal wins format should decide the outcome.
Go Canada Go (and of course go Leafs go )

Well, as far as I can see, a tie in any tournament as important as the World Juniors should be played out in over time. This shoot out business is not the right way at all. Hockey is indeed a team sport and the team should be involved in the final outcome.

Move on already. The game is over and the final is yet to come. Leave any dissension until after the tournament. Enjoy the victory and cheer them up. If you want to grump and complain, do so later.

Why did the teams not reverse the order of shot taking after every three players ?
I thought this was the rule !! Anyone else follow this sport ?

The rules of that tournament re: shootouts are the same rules for all teams involved and that makes Craig Hartsburg a genius for selecting Toews to take a total of 3 of the shots. The USA coach could have selected Johnson 3 times too but he didn't! So in my books, that's smart coaching under the rules that teams were given at the start of the tournament.

While I am neither for nor against a shoot-out, I do have to agree with Scott about the strange format within the World Juniors. My experiences with the shoot-outs have always been the initial 3 players, then if still undecided, a full roster rotation before returning to the first 3 players. Am I extatic that Canada is going for Gold once again? Absolutely. Am I a little confused as to the methods behind that victory? You betcha. The IIHF should learn from their mistakes, and perhaps in the future, we can aviod all discussion of the sort.
That's my two cents... enjoy!
Go Canada!!!!!

whenever you are in a tournament it is important to know the rules of the tournament and use them to your advantage. not to do so is just poor planning. you use one goalie so you should be able to use one shooter if you think that is to your advantage. that said shootouts can go either way.

When it comes down to it, International sporting competitions are about showcasing the skills and talents of each nation's athletes. The victors earn a certain amont of pride and acclaim, be it a team or an individual, depending on the sport.
The result after a team game decided in this fashion is that the acclaim can be squarely deposited on the shoulders of an individual player, thus detracting from the accomplishment of the team. While Mr. Toews performed admirably and certainly deserves credit, I see it as a shame that his teammates were not permitted the chance to showcase their ability AS A TEAM when all the marbles were on the line.
Reducing a team sport to an individual competition is regrettable at any time and much more so at the junior level. One only has to look at the problems major proffesional sports encounter when individuals value themselves over the fates of their teams to see that this is a poor road to travel. (Read: Terrell Owens, Barry Bonds and other over inflated egos)
Hockey has always been a sport which relies more on team play than on individual performance than do the other major team sports. Whereas baseball is merely a collection of one on one battles and basketball and football teams routinely revolve around a single star player, hockey success comes only through a complete team effort. This is not to say that superstars do not exist or are not required, only that, in hockey, the superstars must exist within a team concept to succeed.
The shootout format, especially where one player has multiple opportunities to participate drags hockey down to the lowest common denominator. If we want to see an international breakaway competition, lets organise one. Meanwhile, lets settle hockey games by playing hockey.

Scotty my man, you're absolutely spot on. Although I personally don't like the shoot-out format, but if you're going to use it, at least make each player shoot only once. Also I think after the initial three shooters, if it is still tied, there should be three more shooters chosen from each team and all three should be allowed to shoot, not one sudden death shot. Think about it??

Wow what a game and what an ending I love the shootout. If 60 minutes can't decide a winner change the rules and bring on the goal scorers .Let the top guys shoot as often as there coach wants them to. Nobody is begging to see the backup goaltender,so why forse the checker to try and score a goal.go canada go

No team game should be settled by a shootout, there is so much big money betting on sports and what a easy way to fix a game.

Shootouts in hockey are just plain stupid. In regular season games, simply accept that the game ended in a tie score. In competition, play 10 minute periods till you win.

Controversy about the shoot out aside, I am just relieved Team Canada prevailed to win a squeaker.
I have a "one litre" bet with a Russian co-worker here on a project in Kazakhstan.
It's vodka (his treat) if Russia wins and single malt (my treat) if Canada wins. I am cheering hard for Team Canada because I think they are the best team and they deserve to win. Besides, I don't like vodka!

I agree. The shoot out it weird. Letting one player take multiple shots in the shoot out is wrong. Hockey is a team sport; the winner should be determined by teammanship. Play it out. See which team has the stamina to make it happen. Not one guy.

Shoot-outs are for soccer wussies!

Hockey is the greatest game on earth and should be played until one team wins. For OT, it's OK to go four on four.

Our lads are fantastic and should achieve GOLD! But victory will not be sweet if it's because the win comes from another (ho-hum) shoot-out. That's just soccer...zzzzz. We owe it to our boys! PLAY THE GAME!

I'm all for the shootout - after 3.5 periods of hockey, skill and teamwork rarely produce the winning goal. It is invariably a defensive blunder, a flook shot/deflection or an awful save attempt that decides mega-long games. I say put the game out of it's misery after 70 minutes - end it while the athletes still have enough energy to make it entertaining.

Having said that... using one player multiple times is truly lame. Through the lineup, I say!

Fun to watch, quickly done, but completly robs
from the game, the true team spirit of the competition that only the players can enjoy, or weep about at the truer outcome of all the hard work that they put into it...shame...the true spirit of hockey like loyalty is fast dying...what's next, before it's not hockey any more...

I agree with Scott that a shoot out is not the way to win a hockey game period. However being a hockey coach for 15 years you play by the rules and do anything legally possible for your team to win.This issue of Toews scoring three times is great for his team and fans.The Canadian coaches made the right decisions and won. However to write a story to stir the pot is not what these young Canadian players need. They played by the rules and won. Leave it at that. If rules need to be changed, it should be addressed after the tournament. The boys need to focus on the Russian's not controversy.
LETS GO CANADA!!!!

Scott and others ambivalent about the shoot-out win today in Sweden

Todays victory would taste that much sweeter if all players had influenced the outcome. Though i was caught up in the excitement of watching highly-skilled sharp shooters blaze towards the net (at higher speeds than NHL'rs normally do), I couldn't help but wonder the pressure on both player & goalie. At that moment the entire team concept is erased. Its that same sinking feeling I have when this occurs in a World Cup Soccer outcome. The concept of Team play is designed to allocate the pressured moments onto all players. A winning goal involving wingers, a centre and Defence amid a well rehearsed play and/or spontaneous timely pass constitutes a much more exciting and authentic outcome. Its unfortunate tonight that the U.S. goalie is travelling home feeling he has let the team down. Shoot-outs contaminate the concept of team play in world junior hockey.

Good discussion.

Shoot outs are for practice or warm ups not conclusions to a game.

Ha! - so let's do that. Have a "shoot out" as a part of the warm ups prior to the game. Let 5 players go. It is good entertainment.

Register the shoot out result prior to the match - then watch the teams (especially the shoot out loser) work their butts off to dodge the tie game completely.

I agree Scott,
I am totally against any shootouts. I personally find continuous 4 on 4 much more exciting, it's always back and forth action. why not just play overtime ( World Comp or NHL) 4 on 4???

No matter what anybody says, I do not like shootouts, plain and simple.

Hockey is a "team" sport. It should be decided by the play of the whols team, and not by a few choice players.

Eliminate it from all levels of hockey. This only benefits some players, not all.
The Stanley Cup has been won and lost by a team''s play, not just by one player.

I'm not happy with the shoot-out, except Canada won.

The argument that it's a team game to me implies that we have to be fair to the different styles of teams. The shoot-out as it stands doesn't cut it. To time limit the games, you need something like a shoot-out. How about simulating the 2-on-1 break?

Puck at centre ice, offensive team needs to stay onside, both teams start at their bluelines. Each attempt ends when the puck is cleared out of the defender's end, or into the attacker's end, or the goalie smothers the puck, or a goal is scored, or 30 seconds is up. You define four forward lines of two players. Similarly for defense, you choose four separate defencemen. No player appears more than once per team. Each team makes circuits of four until there's a winner. After each circuit of four, teams change ends. Intent to injure would award the win to the other team automatically, and eliminate the offending team from progressing further in the playoffs. Ah, rules get complicated quickly, but that captures the essence. This hasn't been the result of deep thought, but you see what I'm getting at - more team-like, but with a strong offensive edge, and hopefully leading to a speedy resolution. Skilled players should get emphasized, both offensively and defensively.

This is an international game and not the NHL game, as we know it. This shoot out thing has been flawed since I remember when as a kid that international hockey officials think that the this hockey game was Canadian game, and that no other nation could win the game because the Canadians teams were usually better team as they are today.
This too was flawed, and it was to down grade the Canadian team at that point in time so other nation had a chance to win this game too. Yes, they did that alright, but we as Canadian can only take so much that we loved the game and decided that we get on with our own game, not that it has been any different at any point in time. We will follow any rules they put on the board and we will follow. It turns out that we, as a people of Canada had to play for our own country, as a team or as a fan. Please try not to explain why we have a team Canada and due respect to other nations, did not do everything or any thing to win the game. LOL!!!!

Games decided in OT are always tough but what I would like is 5 min OT's with the number of skaters reduced by 1 every five minutes until you may end up with 1 skater and 1 goalie and let the best team win. Now that would be exciting

This format for a shootout is definitely poor. So is the 4 on 4 with each team only putting on a limited number of skaters ( ie 2 lines each) - probably why some were really dragging their butts out there. Perhaps 4 on 4 for 10 minutes and 3 on 3 ( add a player for a penalty) for the next 10 minutes - I bet there will not be many games going beyond that - and at least more people will be involved and it would be really exciting.

I fully agree! Not only is a shootout a ridiculous way to decide the outcome of an important hockey game, the fact that one shooter from each team can take multiple shots goes completely against the idea of hockey being a team game. I'm just as thrilled that Canada, I mean Jon Toews, won the shootout as any other Canadian. However, if we had lost, there would be a massive outcry all over this nation about the ludicrous format. Good on ya Mr. Morrison for voicing this concern, if only the IIHF would listen!

Yep, shoot-out sucks, but what a treat to watch Toews pick apart that goaltender.

Shootouts are not the best way to end such a great game, but let's be reasonable - the game has to end sometime. After 70 minutes it was a tie game. There's another game that has to be played (the other semi-final). There has to be an end, so you need a way to end the game in a timely fashion - you need to have a shootout. Sure, each team should have to use all its players, but ultimately it has to be done one way or the other.

Mike

I agree, Scott.

Think about it. IIHF has decided, through its round-robin points system, that an overtime/shootout win (2 pts) is NOT worth as much as a regulation time victory (3 pts).

So, if the IIHF has decided shootout wins are not as "good" as regulation wins, how can it then say that shootout wins are sufficient for deciding something as important as a playoff?

I agree with Brian Potter, above. Hockey is a team sport, and should be decided as a team effort.

The shootout is a soccer-contaminated process and has no place in hockey, including the NHL, IMHO.

I agree completely.
I'm happy Canada won, but where would those unsung heroes of yore like Bill Barilko and Bobby Baun be if we had allowed the Europeans to influence how we decided the outcome of games for Lord Stanley's Cup?
It's weird, it's wrong and it's a slap in the face of all that came before it, historically speaking.

With the OT period being 4 on 4 it moves toward the better skill players. When Canada drew a penalty it was even more so for the US. Going to penalties just puts it all on the line. (The World Cup in soccer was decided by penalties too!) We are the only country that really loves this Jr. tournament, most countries only get to see their team in the medal round(if that). I guess thats why we care more about how the games are decided than other countries. I don't care as long as we win!!!

Not really the way a championship game should be decided.Let's go back to the way it was before all these fancy rule changes.Sudden death overtime.

The level of competition determines how a game should be concluded. In house league hockey the idea is to teach players to be good sports, teach hockey skills and teach that the outcome of a game is not important. If they have done their best in the game that is all one can ask. When playing for the gold medal in the IIHF a win is far more important than the process to determine a winner. Using the idea that each game must be played until a winner is determined does not make sense in short tournament. If a round robin game were to go to the extent of say six or seven periods of hockey before a winner is determined, the two teams to next play these two teams will have a decided advantage, one they would not have in the present format. A ten minute overtime and a penalty shot format does not undully stress the team for its next game whereas a long period of additional hockey at a very intense level will certainly leae the players tired and could lead to injury. Playing until a winner is decided format is good where the teams will be facing each other in a playoff.

re:shootout
The solution here is so unbelievably simple. Hockey is a team sport. It is the team that gets themselves to where they are at the end of regulation time, so it should be as a team that the final outcome of the game is settled. The question of how the game is settled ie. sudden death or o/t periods, is another matter, but it should be done AS A TEAM. The principle can be applied to all sports.

Okay! So it wasn't just me! I feel so much better about that. I couldn't figure out why Toews just kept going, and yes, we're all happy about the result but it wasn't the best way to win...

Try to ask the IIHF to clarify the purpose behind the rule and you get no response. How is it Canadians partake in a tournament where there is very little transparency in how its run and the organization behind the tournament.

Scott makes two great points about the shoot out. Weird and Wrong. But even this Canadian would have to say that I am not happy with the outcome. Shoot outs should be restricted to round robin play. I believe the shoot out detracts from the team concept, and run the way the IIHF runs it, makes it much more individualized and takes away from the sportsmanship of the game.

No semi-final game should be determined by a shootout.
Unfortunately these are the times. You're 100% correct Scott,
a shooter should not be allowed to shoot twice unless a team goes
through the entire roster. After all, keep it as close as possible to a team game.

I agree with your comments. I would first of all have liked them to keep playing. It was great hockey. The overtime was not long enough and was obviously designed to lead to a shootout. I also agree that, despite Teows' amazing 3-for-3 goal scoring, it would have been the most teamlike, and therefore a little closer to being a hockey game, if a shooter could only go once.

Scott, couldn't agree more. love your column. Glad you are at CBC.

Yes, that sure was odd!
I was so surprised that the same players shot over and over and that the entire rosters did not get used. No Malik majic : - )
I agree with your comments that it is a team game and having 4 players decide the outcome takes away from that.
If in fact it comes down to a skills competition I really don't mind that.
The shoot-out has always made me nervous in International competitions. Too much is riding on the outcome. Lillehammer, Nagano.
I do however love them in the NHL because they are entertaining and only worth a point not a country's honour.
Thanks as always for your wonderful insight Scott.

Or how about a team losing a point for not finishing the opponent in regulation? I fully empathize with American fans that are up in arms over Toews taking multiple shots. I prefer the idea of 3 shooters and if undecided 3 more shooters, then 3 more, etc.